Were someone to start a startup where users got paid-by-the-view for making educational videos, that would not be too far off from the original intent of patents.
Of course, there are some patents that could contain some valuable information, but today's patent attorneys are drilled to hide any valuable information from public.
Bass-ackwards, I know.
This little example just shows, how distorted the whole patent system has already become. (and it is not the only example)
Agreed - the system appears pretty broken.
Remember that the document is directed to a skilled proponent in the relevant art and not to the public per se.
In that case your "whole" business process or product would not be protected, but it is possible that by identifying the one thing you do better than your potential competitors and by patenting it in time, you could still stifle competition altogether or force your competitors to license your technology (without actually producing a really useful document for anyone who might have wanted to read it once the patent expired.)
Isn't the actual intention of patents to publicize the invention after the 20 years has gone by?
The point of a patent is to grant a limited monopoly to a person who invests substantial resources in some innovation that was previously undiscovered; and yes, in exchange for full disclosure on what exactly the innovation is made of, they can be granted that exclusive right to collect license fees from those who needed to implement that innovation.
Reverse engineering can be a non-trivial effort. If the collective of all car manufacturers have failed to discover a novel way to make cars that (foo) and your invention is mainly a way to make cars (foo), there is no requirement to describe everything about and around the part that makes it (foo) in order to obtain the patent protection of (cars that _foo_). Those other car manufacturers then can either a) find a way to (foo) that doesn't use your (bar), b) pay you for your patented (foo/bar) tech, or c) go on selling cars that don't (foo) with a (bar). In twenty years, everyone who can make cars becomes free to use your (bar) to make their own cars that (foo).
If a (bar) that makes cars (foo) wasn't sufficiently described in the patent application then a patent should not have been granted. If the problem is that 20 years later, cars that work with a (bar) are no longer made by anyone, rendering the patent for (foo) useless, then that's a different problem and it can't be solved in the patent framework that we have now.
This is a bit of a nitpicky thing, but patenting crypto isn't really a great way of protecting your secrets - hiding away the algorithm is basically security by obscurity. Crypto has historically been one of those things that's made stronger by more scrutiny.
What makes you say that this was the "original intent" of patents? I've never seen anything to suggest this. See the U.S. Constitution:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Sounds like, even back then, it was more about incentivizing innovation by granting monopolies.
On patents - they were meant to replace the need for trade secrets, unfortunately most patents that pass these days is for things that can be replicated without looking at the patent's application. And while I understand somewhat the need for patents in the health-care industry (only to a certain extent, since on the other hand access to quality health-care should be a basic right), the situation we are in is completely ridiculous.
In the end, the inventor already benefits by being first to market and a patent is only morally justified if the research costs were too big, allowing the inventor to recover those costs in the face of potential competition that may replicate the results and for which those costs weren't an issue. On the other hand, if patents would disappear tomorrow, I'm pretty sure that people would still go on, building and inventing things. So the benefit to society at large is questionable.
One way to incentivise this is to grant a /temporary/ monopoly, and require people to publish in exchange. When the temporary monopoly expires everyone else can fully benefit from the invention.
The original meaning of the word "patent" might be a bit of a clue here.
The problem that patents tried to solve was of people keeping their innovations secret (in order to maintain an edge on their competitors), and that when they died their secrets died with them. Encouraging people to make public work they were doing anyway way, in the first instance, the way the patent system promoted progress.
(I wonder if the HN traffic spike drives up the "value"?)